For Admissions Contact @ 9133527733

Menu

Leave a Comment / By /

UPSC CARE Mains Practice 14th october 2025

Topic – 130th constitutional amendment act

Source: The Hindu

Q1. The 130th constitutional amendment act’s introduces eligibility criteria for Ministers to enhance political accountability but may unsettle long-standing constitutional conventions. Critically examine the implications of such reform for India’s parliamentary democracy. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction

 

India’s parliamentary democracy, inspired by the Westminster model, is founded on the principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the legislature (Articles 74–75 and 163–164). The Prime Minister or Chief Minister enjoys discretion to select Ministers from among legislators. Proposals to impose eligibility criteria—educational qualifications, clean criminal records, or professional standards—aim to enhance accountability. Yet, such reforms, if statutory, may disturb executive autonomy, constitutional conventions, and the balance between reform and restraint.

Body

  • Constitutional Framework and Executive Discretion
  • Rationale Behind the Reform Proposal
  • Supreme Court Rulings and Constitutional Morality
  • Indian Conventions and the Election Commission’s Role
  • Comparative Perspective: Global Practices
  • The Way Forward

Conclusion

The Bill must, therefore, be revisited—not to weaken accountability, but to ensure that reform walks hand in hand with restraint. Disturbing time-tested conventions that allow the Prime Minister or Chief Minister to select Ministers could imperil the principle of collective responsibility. Wisdom must prevail as the Joint Parliamentary Committee deliberates, so that ethical governance arises from constitutional morality, not coercive legality. Till then, may prudence protect the spirit of India’s parliamentary democracy.

UPSC Syllabus


India’s parliamentary democracy

Why was this question asked?

Q. To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful? (2017)

Introduction

India’s parliamentary democracy, inspired by the Westminster model, is founded on the principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the legislature (Articles 74–75 and 163–164). The Prime Minister or Chief Minister enjoys discretion to select Ministers from among legislators. Proposals to impose eligibility criteria—educational qualifications, clean criminal records, or professional standards—aim to enhance accountability. Yet, such reforms, if statutory, may disturb executive autonomy, constitutional conventions, and the balance between reform and restraint.

Body

Constitutional Framework and Executive Discretion

  • The Constitution prescribes only two formal requirements: legislative membership and an oath of office.
  • Ministerial selection is a political prerogative, not a justiciable matter.
  • The framers intended flexibility, trusting democratic norms and legislative oversight rather than codified qualifications.
  • Statutory restrictions could convert political questions into legal controversies, weakening parliamentary sovereignty.

Rationale Behind the Reform Proposal

  • Reformers argue that moral and competence standards can curb criminalisation of politics and improve administrative quality.
  • Recommendations by the Law Commission (244th Report) and Second Administrative Reforms Commission support ethical codes and transparent criteria.
  • However, over-legalisation may replace political responsibility with bureaucratic rule, undermining democracy’s moral character.

Supreme Court Rulings and Constitutional Morality

  • B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001): A disqualified person cannot hold ministerial office, affirming legality in executive composition.
  • Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2014): The Court urged that those facing grave criminal charges should not be appointed as Ministers, relying on constitutional morality, not judicial compulsion.
  • Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Reiterated collective responsibility as the essence of the parliamentary system.
    → Together, these cases emphasise that ethical restraint must come from within the political process, not court mandates.

Indian Conventions and the Election Commission’s Role

  • India already possesses democratic safeguards without statutory eligibility laws:
  • The Election Commission enforces nomination scrutiny, disqualifies candidates under Sections 8–10 of the Representation of the People Act, and mandates disclosure of criminal and financial records.
  • The Supreme Court’s directives in ADR v. Union of India (2002) and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) empowered the EC to enforce transparency and immediate disqualification upon conviction.
  • Parliamentary conventions, public opinion, and media vigilance further deter unethical appointments.
  • These instruments maintain accountability without infringing on executive discretion, exemplifying India’s blend of convention and democratic pressure.

Comparative Perspective: Global Practices

  • U.K., Canada, and Australia rely on codes of conduct and ministerial accountability to Parliament, not statutory restrictions.
  • Ethical and political sanctions—resignation, public censure, and intra-party discipline—are preferred over legal codification.
  • India, too, can adopt a Ministerial Code of Ethics approved by Parliament, ensuring transparency without altering constitutional design.

The Way Forward

  • Strengthen political party democracy, internal ethics committees, and public disclosure norms.
  • Institutionalise a non-statutory code of conduct for Ministers under Parliament’s moral authority.
  • Empower the Election Commission and parliamentary ethics committees for continuous monitoring.
  • Reform should uphold executive responsibility while nurturing constitutional conventions and public accountability

Conclusion

The Bill must, therefore, be revisited—not to weaken accountability, but to ensure that reform walks hand in hand with restraint. Disturbing time-tested conventions that allow the Prime Minister or Chief Minister to select Ministers could imperil the principle of collective responsibility. Wisdom must prevail as the Joint Parliamentary Committee deliberates, so that ethical governance arises from constitutional morality, not coercive legality. Till then, may prudence protect the spirit of India’s parliamentary democracy.

Topic – Ecological management of rivers

Source: The Hindu

Q 2. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has opened opportunities for India to pursue long-pending projects such as the Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project and the Wullar Barrage. However, it also raises concerns about India’s credibility as a rule-based riparian state and the ecological sustainability of its river management. Critically examine. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction

The Indus Waters Treaty (1960), brokered by the World Bank, is often hailed as one of the world’s most enduring transboundary water-sharing arrangements. India’s recent decision to suspend the IWT’s implementation marks a strategic shift in its approach toward hydro-diplomacy — aimed at removing procedural bottlenecks and reviving stalled infrastructure projects on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) while balancing strategic, legal, and ecological imperatives.

Body

  • About Wullar Barrage (Tulbul Navigation Project)
  • Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project
  • Credibility and International Safeguards
  • Comparative Global Precedents
  • Ecological and Policy Imperatives

Conclusion

The IWT’s suspension gives India strategic flexibility, yet its true success depends on hydro-strategic stewardship—anchored in ecological restraint, legal consistency, and transparent governance. If managed prudently, projects like Sawalkote and Wullar could redefine India’s water diplomacy where national security and ecological responsibility reinforce one another.

UPSC Syllabus

Ecological management of Riverine resources

Why was this question asked?

Q. Not many years ago,river linking was a concept but it is becoming reality in the country. Discuss the advantages of river linking and its possible impact on the environment. [2017]

Introduction

The Indus Waters Treaty (1960), brokered by the World Bank, is often hailed as one of the world’s most enduring transboundary water-sharing arrangements. India’s recent decision to suspend the IWT’s implementation marks a strategic shift in its approach toward hydro-diplomacy — aimed at removing procedural bottlenecks and reviving stalled infrastructure projects on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) while balancing strategic, legal, and ecological imperatives.

Body

Wullar Barrage (Tulbul Navigation Project)

  • Location & Purpose: The Wullar Barrage, conceived in the 1980s, is situated on the Jhelum River near Sopore in Jammu and Kashmir. It aims to regulate outflows from Wullar Lake, Asia’s largest freshwater lake.
  • Objectives: The project’s core purpose is to maintain navigability of the Jhelum–Baramulla–Srinagar waterway, ensure consistent irrigation supply, and mitigate floods.
  • Pakistan’s Objection: Islamabad argued that the reservoir violated the IWT’s storage restrictions, leading to a suspension of work in 1987.
  • Strategic Significance: With the IWT now in abeyance, India can revive this project to improve inland water transport, irrigation, and ecosystem regulation in the Kashmir Valley.

Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project

  • River & Capacity: Built on the Chenab River in Ramban district, Jammu & Kashmir, the 1,856 MW Sawalkote project is the largest run-of-river scheme in the Chenab basin.
  • Regional Benefits: It promises to boost hydropower generation, reduce energy shortages in northern India, create jobs, and stabilise grid supply.
  • Strategic Dimension: It symbolises India’s resolve to utilise its entitlements under the Treaty while ensuring that energy security complements regional development.

Credibility and International Safeguards

  • India has historically upheld international norms such as the UN Watercourses Convention (1997) and the Helsinki Rules (1966).
  • By notifying Pakistan before suspension, India followed Article XII(3) procedures, preserving transparency.
  • The move may also be defended under the doctrine of changed circumstances (rebus sic stantibus), provided India retains ecological balance and continues information exchange.

Comparative Global Precedents

  • Columbia River Treaty (U.S.–Canada, 1964): Demonstrates how joint monitoring can balance national interests and shared benefits.
  • Mekong River Commission (1995): Combines upstream sovereignty with downstream consultation.
  • Danube Basin Agreement (1994): Institutionalises cooperative sovereignty and ecological safeguards.
    These reinforce India’s position that assertive autonomy can coexist with rule-based cooperation.

Ecological and Policy Imperatives

  • Projects in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem necessitate sediment management, cumulative impact studies, and flow regulation.
    India should transform hydrological data from a security-sensitive issue into a confidence-building tool through regional mechanisms (e.g., BIMSTEC Water Data Exchange), linking strategic autonomy with environmental stewardship.

Conclusion

The IWT’s suspension gives India strategic flexibility, yet its true success depends on hydro-strategic stewardship—anchored in ecological restraint, legal consistency, and transparent governance. If managed prudently, projects like Sawalkote and Wullar could redefine India’s water diplomacy where national security and ecological responsibility reinforce one another.

UPSC CARE Mains Practice 16th october 2025
UPSC CARE Mains Practice 13th october 2025
Scroll to Top